Smart, Resilient and Transition Cities: Emerging Approaches and Tools for A Climate-Sensitive Urban Development

By Adriana Galderisi and Angela Colucci

Smart, Resilient and Transition Cities: Emerging Approaches and Tools for Climate-Sensitive Urban Development starts with a presentation of three widespread Urban Metaphors, which are gaining increasing attention from urban planners and decision-makers: Smart City, Resilient City and Transition Towns, being all of them focused on the need for enhancing cities’ capacities to cope with the multiple and heterogeneous challenges threatening contemporary cities and their future development and, above all, with climate issues. Then, the Authors provide an overview of current large-scale and urban strategies to counterbalance climate change so far undertaken in different geographical contexts (Europe, United States, China, Africa and Australia), shedding light on the different approaches, on the different weights assigned to mitigation and adaptation issues as well as on the main barriers hindering their effectiveness and translation into measurable outcomes. Opportunities and criticalities arising from the rich, ‘sprawled’ and ‘blurred’ landscape of current strategies and initiatives in the face of climate change pave the way to a discussion on the lessons learnt from current initiatives and provide new hints for developing integrated climate strategies, capable to guide planners and decision makers towards a climate sensitive urban development

Smart, Resilient and Transition Cities: Emerging Approaches and Tools for Climate-Sensitive Urban Development merges a scientific approach with a pragmatic one. Through a case study approach, the Authors explore strengths and weaknesses of institutional and informal practices to foreshadow innovative paths for an adaptive process of urban governance in the face of climate change. The book guides the reader along new governance paths, characterized by continuous learning and close cooperation and communication among different actors and stakeholders and, in so doing, helps them to overcome current ‘siloed’ approaches to climate issues.

• Links resilience, smart growth, low-carbon urbanism, climate-friendly cities, sustainable development and transition cities, being all these concepts crucial to improve effective climate policies
• Includes a number of case studies showing how cities, different in size, geographical, cultural and economic contexts are currently dealing with climate issues, grasping synergies and commonalities arising from current institutional practices and transition initiatives
• Provides strategic and operative guidelines to overcome barriers and critical issues emerging from current practices, promoting cross-sectoral approaches to counterbalance climate change

• Language: English
• Publisher: Elsevier Science
• Release date: Jul 17, 2018
• ISBN: 9780128114780

Adriana Galderisi

Adriana Galderisis is Associate Professor at the Department of Architecture and Industrial Design of the University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, teaching Urban Planning and Urban Design in graduate courses in Architecture. Ph.D. in Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Naples Federico II. She is also a member of the Coordinating Board of the Thematic Group Resilience and Risk Mitigation Strategies of the Association of European Schools of Planning (AESOP). Research experience comes from a number of EU funded projects: “ENSURE Project - Enhancing resilience of communities and territories facing natural and na-tech hazards” (VII Framework Program); SCENARIO Project - Support on Common European Strategy for sustainable natural and induced technological hazards mitigation; ARMONIA Project - Applied Multi Risk Mapping of Natural Hazards for Impact Assessment” (VI Framework Program). Adriana has also authored several papers presented at national and international conferences and 90 publications (monographs, chapters in books and scientific articles).

Book preview

Smart, Resilient and Transition Cities

Emerging Approaches and Tools for A Climate-Sensitive Urban Development

Adriana Galderisi

University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Aversa (CE), Italy

Angela Colucci

Co.O.Pe.Ra.Te. ldt, Pavia, Italy

Table of Contents

Cover image

Title page

Copyright

List of Contributors

Foreword

Introduction

Section I. Metaphors to Enhance Cities' Capacity to Cope With Climate Change

Chapter 1. The Smart City Metaphor to Foster Collaborative and Adaptive Decision-Making Processes in the Face of Climate Issues

1.1. Introducing the Smart City Metaphor

1.2. The Smart City Between Conflicting Approaches and Goals: Looking for New Directions

1.3. Smart City Initiatives: From Sectoral Toward Integrated Perspectives

1.4. The Governance of the Smart City: From Top-Down Initiatives Toward Collaborative Decision-Making Processes

1.5. Information, Knowledge, and Learning for Adaptive Cities

1.6. Concluding Remarks

Chapter 2. The Resilient City Metaphor to Enhance Cities' Capabilities to Tackle Complexities and Uncertainties Arising From Current and Future Climate Scenarios

2.1. Introducing the Resilient City Metaphor

2.2. Tracing The Evolution Of Resilience Across Disciplinary Boundaries: Emerging Perspectives

2.3. The Resilient City Initiatives: Strengths and Weaknesses

2.4. Concluding Remarks

Chapter 3. The Transition Approach in Urban Innovations: Local Responses to Climate Change

3.1. Societal Transition Models

3.2. Transition Initiatives

3.3. The Transition (Towns) Network

3.4. Transition Initiatives: Innovations for Facing Urban Climate Change Issues

Chapter 4. Smart, Resilient, and Transition Cities: Commonalities, Peculiarities and Hints for Future Approaches

4.1. Three Urban Metaphors

4.2. Commonalities and Peculiarities of the Three Metaphors in Scientific Literature

4.3. Commonalities and Peculiarities of the Three Metaphors in Current Practices

4.4. Concluding Remarks

Section II. Large-Scale Strategies to Counterbalance Climate Change

Chapter 5. European Strategies and Initiatives to Tackle Climate Change: Toward an Integrated Approach

5.1. Europe and Climate Change Issues

5.2. European Strategies to Counterbalance Climate Change

5.3. Concluding Remarks: Which Future for Climate Policies in Europe?

Chapter 6. The American Approach to Climate Change: A General Overview and a Focus on Northern and Arctic Regions

6.1. Strategies and Initiatives in the Face of Climate Change: The American Approach

6.2. Focusing on Northern and Arctic Regions

Chapter 7. Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Initiatives in Africa: The Case of the Climate and Development Knowledge Network Working With Informality to Build Resilience in African Cities Project

7.1. Introduction

7.2. Background: Resilience as a Convening Concept for Integrating Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation

7.3. Case Study: The Climate and Development Knowledge Network Working with Informality to Build Resilience in African Cities Project

7.4. Lessons Learned

7.5. Conclusion

Chapter 8. Addressing Climate Change in China: Policies and Governance

8.1. Introduction: Climate Change and Energy in China

8.2. Climate Governance

8.3. Strategies and Initiatives in Climate Change

8.4. Mitigation and Adaptation in Cities

8.5. Concluding Remarks

Chapter 9. Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies in the Face of Climate Change: The Australian Approach

9.1. Climate Change Issues in Australia

9.2. Significant Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies by the Australian Federal Government

9.3. Beyond Mitigation and Adaptation: Climate Change as a Contested Political Issue

9.4. Conclusions: Which Approach for Mitigation and Adaptation in Australia?

Section III. Cities Dealing With Climate Change: Institutional Practices

Chapter 10. European Cities Addressing Climate Change

10.1. The Pivotal Role of Cities in Counterbalancing Climate Change

10.2. European Cities Addressing Mitigation Issues: The Covenant of Mayors Initiative

10.3. European Cities Addressing Adaptation Issues: The Mayors Adapt Initiative

10.4. European Cities Embracing an Integrated Climate Strategy: The New Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy

10.5. Concluding Remarks

Chapter 11. Adaptation and Spatial Planning Responses to Climate Change Impacts in the United Kingdom: The Case Study of Portsmouth

11.1. Climate Change Impacts in the United Kingdom

11.2. Portsmouth's Climate Change Adaptation and Planning Responses

11.3. Toward a Resilient Portsmouth

11.4. Conclusions

Chapter 12. Land-Use Planning and Climate Change Impacts on Coastal Urban Regions: The Cases of Rostock and Riga

12.1. Climate Change Impacts and Land-Use Planning in Urban Regions

12.2. Challenges, Opportunities, and Barriers for Resilient Land-Use Planning

12.3. Conclusions and Outlook

Chapter 13. Importance of Multisector Collaboration in Dealing With Climate Change Adaptation: The Case of Belgrade

13.1. The Belgrade Local Context

13.2. Current Initiatives/Practices

13.3. Critical Analysis of Current Initiatives/Practices

Chapter 14. Genoa and Climate Change: Mitigation and Adaptation Policies

14.1. The Genoa Case Study: Climatic and Geographical Features

14.2. Description of Current Climate Initiatives in Genoa

14.3. Conclusions and Critical Analysis

Chapter 15. The Evolution of Flooding Resilience: The Case of Barcelona

15.1. Introduction: Flooding Resilience and Barcelona

15.2. First Patterns of Flooding Resilience: Links Between Drainage Systems Design and Urban Plans

15.3. Barcelona Olympic Model Framing the Contemporary Challenges in Flooding Resilience

15.4. Sustainable Drainage: Enhancing Decentralization for the Future of Urban Flooding Resilience

15.5. Conclusions

Chapter 16. Athens Facing Climate Change: How Low Perceptions and the Economic Crisis Cancel Institutional Efforts

16.1. The Profile of Metropolitan Athens: Current Vulnerabilities, Exposure to Climate Change and Resilience Assets

16.2. Current Responses to Climate Change: Policies, Initiatives, Practices

16.3. Critical Analysis of Current Policies, Initiatives, and Practices

Chapter 17. Sustainability of Climate Policy at Local Level: The Case of Gaziantep City

17.1. Introduction

17.2. The Climate Policy in Turkey

17.3. The Case Study of Gaziantep

17.4. Concluding Discussion

Chapter 18. Toward Integration: Managing the Divergence Between National Climate Change Interventions and Urban Planning in Ghana

18.1. Background

18.2. Climate Change Issues

18.3. Climate Change and Urban Planning in the Kumasi Metropolis

18.4. Managing the National and Urban Planning Divergence

Chapter 19. Spatial Planning for Climate Adaptation and Flood Risk: Development of the Sponge City Program in Guangzhou

19.1. Introduction

19.2. The Profile of Guangzhou: Rapid Urbanization and Exposure to Climate Change

19.3. Sponge City: Shifting the Spatial Planning Frame

19.4. Critical Analysis of the Municipal Interpretation of the Sponge City Program in Guangzhou

19.5. Conclusions

Chapter 20. Climate Change and Australian Local Governments: Adaptation Between Strategic Planning and Challenges in Newcastle, New South Wales

20.1. Introduction

20.2. Climate Change Adaptation Between Land Use and Development

20.3. Climate Change Adaptation and the Target on Local Communities

20.4. Challenges for Climate Change Adaptation

20.5. Conclusion

Section IV. Cities Dealing With Climate Change: Transition Initiatives

Chapter 21. Transition Initiatives: Three Exploration Paths

21.1. Transition Initiatives: Three Exploration Paths

21.2. Transition Network

21.3. Transition Initiatives Acting on Urban Commons and Public Life

21.4. Resilience Practices Observatory

21.5. Concluding Remarks

Chapter 22. Transition Towns Network in the United Kingdom: The Case of Totnes

22.1. Totnes Transition Town

Chapter 23. Transition Towns Network in Italy: The Case of Monteveglio

23.1. Monteveglio Transition Town

23.2. Critical Analysis of the Initiative

Chapter 24. Model for Integrated Urban Disaster Risk Management at the Local Level: Bottom-Up Initiatives of Academics

24.1. Introduction

24.2. Initiative by the Integrated Urbanism Master's Program to Build UDRM Capacity at the Local Authority

24.3. Critical Analysis of the Initiative

Chapter 25. Enhancing Community Resilience in Barcelona: Addressing Climate Change and Social Justice Through Spaces of Comanagement

25.1. Adapting and Mitigating Climate Change From Below

25.2. From Community-Led to Comanagement: The Pla BUITS Experience

25.3. Discussion: Promises From a New Governance Model Dealing With Comanagement?

Chapter 26. Barriers to Societal Response and a Strategic Action Plan Toward Climate Change Adaptation and Urban Resilience in Turkey

26.1. Introduction

26.2. Physical Dimension: Increasing Exposure and Systemic Vulnerability

26.3. Societal Concerns: Stakeholder Coordination and Collaboration

26.4. Discussion and Conclusion

Chapter 27. Victims or Survivors: Resilience From the Slum Dwellers’ Perspective

27.1. Pedda Jalaripeta (Large Fishing Village)

27.2. Data Sources and Collection

27.3. Surviving Disasters Through Collaboration: Fire and Gentrification/Eviction

27.4. Collaborating, Empowering, and Educating

Chapter 28. Bottom-Up Initiatives for Climate Change Mitigation: Transition Town in Newcastle

28.1. Introduction

28.2. Transition and Transition Town

28.3. Transition Newcastle

28.4. Transition and Climate Change Mitigation: Challenges and Opportunities for Transition Newcastle

Section V. Cross-Cutting Issues: Hints for Integrated Perspectives

Chapter 29. Integrated Knowledge in Climate Change Adaptation and Risk Mitigation to Support Planning for Reconstruction

29.1. Cities as Complex Entities

29.2. Dealing With Hazards and Risk in Contemporary Cities: A Multidisciplinary Challenge

29.3. Resilience: Will This Concept Provide the Necessary Link Between Disaster Scientists, Climate Change Experts, and Planners?

29.4. Knowledge Supporting Better and More Adaptive Recovery and Reconstruction

29.5. An Example of the Possible Application of a Multirisk, Attentive-to-Climate Change Recovery After a Devastating Earthquake: the Case of the 2016 Central Italy Event

Chapter 30. Boundaries, Overlaps and Conflicts Between Disaster Risk Reduction and Adaptation to Climate Change. Are There Prospects of Integration?

30.1. Climate Change and Disaster Risk: Are They Related?

30.2. DRR and Adaptation to CC: Convergences and Mismatches in Terminology, Processes, and Tools

30.3. The Need for and Prospects of Integration of DRR and Adaptation to CC

Chapter 31. The Contribution of the Economic Thinking to Innovate Disaster Risk Reduction Policies and Action

31.1. Urban Systems and Disasters From an Economic Perspective

31.2. Coping With Disaster Risk: How Economic Understanding Might Enhance the DRR Action

31.3. CBA as an Economic-Based Tool to Enhance Decision-Making Processes in DRR Action and Territorial Resilience

31.4. Concluding Remarks

Chapter 32. Flood Resilient Districts: Integrating Expert and Community Knowledge in Genoa

32.1. Urban Context, Environmental Characteristics and Citizens' Engagement

32.2. Main Meteorological Phenomena and Their Impacts

32.3. Main Fragilities

32.4. The Suggested Local Strategy of Disaster Risk Reduction and Planning of Actions

32.5. Conclusions and Critical Analysis

Section VI. Towards A Climate-Sensitive Urban Development

Chapter 33. Drawing Lessons From Experience

33.1. Large-Scale Strategies in the Face of Climate Change: Trajectories and Barriers

33.2. Climate Policies at Local Level: Drawing Upon Cities' Experiences

33.3. Transition Initiatives in the Face of Climate Change: Hints From Current Practices

33.4. Final Remarks

Chapter 34. Future Perspectives: Key Principles for a Climate Sensitive Urban Development

34.1. Introduction

34.2. The Key Principles for Climate-Sensitive Urban Development

Index

Copyright

Elsevier

Radarweg 29, PO Box 211, 1000 AE Amsterdam, Netherlands

The Boulevard, Langford Lane, Kidlington, Oxford OX5 1GB, United Kingdom

50 Hampshire Street, 5th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02139, United States

Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher. Details on how to seek permission, further information about the Publisher’s permissions policies and our arrangements with organizations such as the Copyright Clearance Center and the Copyright Licensing Agency, can be found at our website: www.elsevier.com/permissions.

This book and the individual contributions contained in it are protected under copyright by the Publisher (other than as may be noted herein).

Notices

Knowledge and best practice in this field are constantly changing. As new research and experience broaden our understanding, changes in research methods, professional practices, or medical treatment may become necessary.

Practitioners and researchers must always rely on their own experience and knowledge in evaluating and using any information, methods, compounds, or experiments described herein. In using such information or methods they should be mindful of their own safety and the safety of others, including parties for whom they have a professional responsibility.

To the fullest extent of the law, neither the Publisher nor the authors, contributors, or editors, assume any liability for any injury and/or damage to persons or property as a matter of products liability, negligence or otherwise, or from any use or operation of any methods, products, instructions, or ideas contained in the material herein.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-0-12-811477-3

For Information on all Elsevier Publications visit our website at https://www.elsevier.com/books-and-journals

Publisher: Candice Janco

Acquisition Editor: Laura S Kelleher

Editorial Project Manager: Emily Thomson

Production Project Manager: Prem Kumar Kaliamoorthi

Designer: Greg Harris

Typeset by TNQ Technologies

List of Contributors

Deepika Andavarapu,     University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, United States

Funda Atun,     Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy

Osman Balaban,     Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

Francesc Baró,     Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona (UAB), Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain

Emanuele Biagi,     Fondazione Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy

Daniele F. Bignami,     Fondazione Politecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy

Graham Brewer,     University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia

Luca Sára Bródy,     Gran Sasso Science Institute (GSSI), L'Aquila, Italy

Alessia Canzian,     Independent Researcher, Italy

Faith Ka Shun Chan

University of Nottingham Ningbo China, Ningbo, China

University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom

Lorenzo Chelleri

Gran Sasso Science Institute (GSSI), L'Aquila, Italy

Universitat Internacional de Catalunya (UCI), Barcelona, Spain

Donatella Cillo,     Environment Agency, England, United Kingdom

Ratka Čolić,     University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

Angela Colucci,     Co.O.Pe.Ra.Te. ldt, Pavia, Italy

Marcin Dąbrowski,     Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

Sonja Deppisch,     HafenCity University Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany

Catherine Dezio,     Politecnico of Milan, Milan, Italy

Stephen Kofi Diko,     University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, United States

David J. Edelman,     University of Cincinnati, Cincinnati, OH, United States

Andrea Favaro,     Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, Madrid, Spain

Giuseppe Forino,     University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia

Adriana Galderisi,     University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Aversa, Italy

Bahar Gedikli,     Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey

Gørild Heggelund,     Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Lysaker, Norway

Giada Limongi,     Engineer, Naples, Italy

Marija Maruna,     University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia

Meng Meng,     Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

Scira Menoni,     Politecnico di Milano, Milano, Italy

Nagendra Monangi,     Cincinnati Children's Hospital, Cincinnati, OH, United States

Kwame Ntiri Owusu-Daaku,     University of West Florida, Pensacola, FL, United States

Giulia Pesaro,     Poltecnico di Milano, Milan, Italy

Isabel Ruiz-Mallen,     Universitat Oberta de Catalunya (UOC), Barcelona, Spain

Kalliopi Sapountzaki,     Harokopio University of Athens, Athens, Greece

Dominic Stead,     Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

Erica Treccozzi,     Building Engineer, Naples, Italy

Jason von Meding,     University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, Australia

Foreword

Metaphors, as well as analogies and allegories, are cognitive tools for understanding abstract phenomena. Metaphors are used in the course of everyday communications, as the human conceptual system is heavily metaphorical in nature: Conceptual metaphors consist of sets of systematic correspondences, or mappings, between two domains of experience and […] the meaning of a particular metaphorical expression […] is based on such correspondences (Kövecses, 2015, p. ix).

Urban planning has historically used existing concepts available in other realms—such as evolution (Mehmood, 2010)—as metaphorical mechanisms to describe the development of urban forms and communities. Urban studies, and urban studies authors, have used metaphors as a tool in urban theory and urban planning as described by Nientied (2016). Nientied added that without new metaphors—and the shift in style of thinking that new metaphors bring with them—urban studies will be unable to do proper justice to the heterogeneity and complexity of cities (Nientied, 2016, p. 1). Nientied echoed Sharon Meager (2015), who advocated the need for new metaphors or figurations that help people to think creatively about urban conditions and the possibilities for political interventions.

Utopian (and dystopian) narrations of potential or imaginative urban futures have used metaphors and allegories to map and depict hypothetical societies and urban forms. Those imaginative futures started from the utopian authors’ dissatisfaction with the society and the urban life they lived in. Many thinkers—whether urbanists, architects, social reformers, philosophers, or religious persons—envisioned potential future societies to escape the burdens and the constraints of the time they lived in. When Thomas Moore—the Henry VIII knight later on incarcerated by the same monarch because of his refusal to give his oath to support the King as head of the Church of England—described in 1516 the island Utopia, located somewhere in the New World. Moore imagined that the society that lived on the island was based on far-reaching equality but under the authority of wise, elderly men (Sargent p. 2). The society Thomas Moore depicted provides a much better life for its citizens than was available to the citizens of England at the time (Sargent pp. 2, 3).

Ecological and environmental planning has adopted metaphors as well (Haar 2007). Ian McHarg titled one of the chapters of Design with Nature (1969) A world as a Capsule to emphasize the limitation of the resources available on earth and the attitude humans should have toward their use. McHarg reverberated the economist Kenneth Boulding, who in turn was influenced by Henry George’s 1879 Progress and Poverty. Boulding wrote in 1966 The Economics of the Coming Spaceship Earth, in which he compared the cowboy economy, the cowboy being symbolic of the illimitable plains and also associated with reckless, exploitative, romantic, and violent behavior (Boulding 1966, p. 2), with the spaceman economy, in which the earth has become a single spaceship, without unlimited reservoirs of anything, either for extraction or for pollution, and in which, therefore, man must find his place in a cyclical ecological system which is capable of continuous reproduction of material form even though it cannot escape having inputs of energy (Boulding 1966, p. 4).

Cities of resilience is, in itself, a metaphor (Musacchio and Wu 2002; Pickett et al., 2004), as are smart cities and transition towns, all of them well described by the authors in the first section of this book. The use of metaphors, they explain, is also related to the need for ‘positive’ visions, capable to support innovation and define new urban development models, focusing on strategic and synergic actions rather than on regulative (planning and land use) tools (Chapter 4). The two authors advocated for the role of the metaphors in planning discourse and urban studies as a positive device to support innovation in the way we manage our resources, our cities, our oikos. The use of metaphors, I would add, does not push us away from reality but, on the contrary, provides the right distance from it, a distance that allows farsightedness and opportunities for speculations.

Italo Calvino, the author of Invisible Cities (1974), gave Marco Polo the opportunity to describe to Kublai Khan the cities he visited in his expeditions using several urban metaphors. Polo portrayed cities like Zora that have languished, disintegrated, disappeared. The earth has forgotten her (p. 16) or like Fedora, where you can see in crystal globes the model of a different Fedora. These are the forms the city could have taken if, for one reason or another, it had not become what we see today (p. 32), or like Ottavia, the spiderweb city suspended over the abyss in which the life of Octavia’s inhabitants is less uncertain than in other cities. They know the net will last only so long (p. 75). Polo looks like he is using metaphors, allegories, and bold images to describe all the cities he has visited, but at one point the Khan asks Polo why he has never spoken about Venice, his hometown. Marco, smiling to the Khan, answered, What else do you believe I have been talking to you about? Every time I describe a city I am saying something about Venice (p. 86). When we use metaphors, we are like Marco Polo; we talk about the cities we know, the risks they are running, and the solutions that can be implemented to improve the life of the communities within.

Danilo Palazzo,     College of DAAP, Cincinnati, OH, United States

References

Boulding K.E. The economics of the coming spaceship earth. In: Jarrett H, ed. Environmental quality in a growing economy. Baltimore, MD: Resources for the Future/Johns Hopkins University Press; 1966.

Calvino I. Invisible Cities. New York, NY: Houghton Mifflin Hartcourt Publishing Company; 1974.

Haar S. The Ecological City: Metaphor Versus Metabolism. University of Illinois at Chicago, School of Architecture, Great Cities Institute; 2007 Publication Number GCP-07–05.

Kövecses Z. Where Metaphors Come From: Reconsidering Context in Metaphor. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2015.

McHarg I. Design with Nature. Garden City, NY: Natural History Press; 1969.

Meager S. The politics of urban knowledge. City. 2015;19(6):801–819.

Mehmood A. On the history and potentials of evolutionary metaphors in urban planning. Planning Theory. 2010;9(1):63–87. doi: 10.1177/1473095209346495. http://plt.sagepub.com.

Musacchio L, Wu J. Cities of Resilience: Four Themes of the Symposium. Understanding and Restoring Ecosystems: A Convocation. Washington, DC: Ecological Society of America; 2002.

Nientied P. Metaphor and urban studies-a crossover, theory and a case study of SS Rotterdam. City, Territory and Architecture. 2016;3:21. doi: 10.1186/s40410-016-0051-z.

Pickett S.T.A, Cadenasso M.L, Grove J.M. Resilient cities: meaning, models, and metaphor for integrating the ecological, socio-economic, and planning realms. Landscape and Urban Planning. 2004;69:369–384. doi: 10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.10.035.

Sargent L.T. Utopianism: A Very Short Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press; 2010.

Introduction

In the past decades, the growth of urban population and the pervasive imprint of urbanization processes (Brenner and Schmid 2014) led planning theory to largely focus on the need for more in-depth investigation of the emerging urbanization patterns to overcome the traditional dichotomy between urban and rural and to better conceptualize contemporary urbanization geographies. However, current urbanization processes and expected trends also claim for a better conceptualization of the numerous environmental and social challenges they are responsible for. As pointed out few years ago by the Italian planner Secchi (2014), social inequalities and the consequences of climate change are indeed among the most important aspects of the new urban issue.

The negative implications of current urbanization patterns were also clearly remarked on by the sociologist Ulrich Beck, who defined the current society as a risk society, characterized by a pluralization of risks, which contend each other for the primacy (Beck, 1992, 2017).

In this vein, this book specifically focuses on climate change, considered to be a global problem—with grave implications: environmental, social, economic, and political and for the distribution of goods (Encyclical Laudato Si, 2015)—whose negative impacts will affect humans for a long time, although some measures have already been undertaken.

Climate change is, indeed, widely considered not only to be a by-product of urbanization processes, above all, of current urban lifestyles but also to be an engine for significant planetary geographical and social changes. As remarked by Beck (2017), climate change and its related phenomena (such as sea level rise, drought, floods, and heat waves) are creating new landscapes of inequality all over the world. For example, the sea level rise is designing new geographies where key lines are no longer identifiable in administrative boundaries but rather in the sea level altitudes and the changes in mean temperatures are inducing drought and consequent water and food scarcity in some regions, opening new agricultural and economic opportunities in others.

The global dimension of climate change requires a thorough review of current development models and effective strategies to be developed and implemented at different geographical levels, from the global and national levels to the local scale. To better cope with climate issues, both large-scale strategies to counterbalance greenhouse gas emissions and local policies aimed at facing the unavoidable impacts of climate change at local scale are required.

However, at present, even in the absence of national strategies or in case of their inconsistency, cities are increasingly emerging as key actors in counterbalancing climate change: They are giving life to, and participating in, new global carbon ethic geographies, creating new common norms about responsible urban development and regaining a central position similar to the one they had long ago in the prenational world (Beck, 2017). In other words, all over the world, climate issues are entering urban policy agenda, assigning cities a pioneer role in carrying out strategies and initiatives aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions, while adapting to the impacts of the increasingly frequent climate-related hazards.

The emerging role of cities in addressing global challenges, including climate change, has two major and interconnected consequences that will be explored in-depth in this book:

• The proliferation of metaphors, which introduce new ways of describing cities and guiding their future development in the face of changing climatic (and more in general environmental, social, and economic) conditions.

• The development of heterogeneous approaches, tools, and governance models for guiding cities toward a climate-sensitive urban development.

In respect to the first point, it is worth reminding that metaphors have been always widespread in planning discipline, but they have been mostly used when the urban condition is transformed and shifting (Secchi, 2014), as is occurring nowadays under the pressure of the global challenges discussed here. The role of urban metaphors for strengthening cities’ capacities to cope with emerging challenges is crucial: They aim at structuring, indeed, both the way we think and the way we act, playing a central role in building awareness and consensus around a given issue as well as in driving urban planning practices toward a given goal.

In respect to the second point, it is crucial nowadays to explore how cities, different in size and geographical, cultural, and economic contexts, are dealing with the common challenge of climate change, to better grasp synergies and commonalities arising from current urban practices and to select the most promising strategies and tools so far developed to deal with climate issues.

Finally, although Europe is considered one of the world leaders in global mitigation policies and has devoted great efforts in enhancing and coordinating local initiatives toward adaptation, this book aims at overcoming the most foregone North European–centered perspective, to embrace a wider geographical perspective including the less-explored practices in eastern and southern Europe on the one hand and the numerous initiatives that have been undertaken out of Europe (Turkey, Africa, China, India, and Australia) on the other: These initiatives are crucial, indeed, to effectively contribute to the global climate issues and may provide significant clues to reframe the consolidated theoretical and operational approaches in the European context.

According to these premises, the book is structured into six sections that will be briefly described in the following.

The first section presents three of the most widespread urban metaphors: smart city, resilient city, and transition towns. These metaphors are drawing increasing attention from urban planners and decision-makers because they emphasize the need for enhancing cities’ capacities to cope with the heterogeneous challenges threatening contemporary cities and their future development and, first, with climate change and climate-related hazards. In detail, the first three chapters analyze and discuss each metaphor, by focusing on their evolution paths across different approaches and disciplinary domains and exploring the most promising conceptualizations in the scientific debate as well as the main initiatives and practices they are inspiring and guiding. Moreover, the potentials of these metaphors to support climate mitigation and adaption strategies as well as the barriers currently hindering their effectiveness in counterbalancing climate change are discussed. Then, the last chapter focuses on commonalities and peculiarities of the three urban metaphors, emphasizing that, despite the significant commonalities linking them, they have been so far developed separately both in theory and in practice, moving as independent labels in addressing climate issues.

The second section focuses on the heterogeneous large-scale strategies so far undertaken in the face of climate change in different geographical contexts, highlighting the heterogeneous approaches, the different weights assigned to mitigation and adaptation policies as well as the main barriers hindering their effectiveness and translation into measurable outcomes. In detail, an overview is provided of both mitigation and adaptation strategies promoted in Europe, the United States, China, Africa, and Australia.

The third section, based on a case study approach, provides an overview of current practices guided by institutional actors (local authorities) and addresses mitigation and/or adaptation issues at the urban scale, with reference to cities selected according to different geographical locations, cultural and economic contexts, and urban sizes. In detail, an overview of current practices in Europe, Turkey, Africa, China, and Australia addressed both to reduce energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions and to build disaster resilient cities in the face of climate-related hazards will be provided, while pointing out gaps and barriers that limit their development.

The fourth section, which similarly adopts a case study approach, focuses on bottom-up initiatives and practices directly enacted by citizens or by larger groups of stakeholders, including local authorities, and addressed to deal with climate issues. The section includes, in addition to an introductory chapter on transition initiatives all over the world, case studies from Europe, Turkey, India, and Australia. These case studies illustrate the renovate and widespread interest of local communities in environmental issues, the opportunities and criticalities arising from the rich, sprawled, and blurred landscape of current processes, and the success factors and weaknesses in building up inclusive and participative governance processes.

The fifth section focuses on the need to overcome currently prevailing sectoral approaches to climate issues in favor of more integrated perspectives. In detail, this section will explore the relationships among disaster risk reduction and climate policies, namely climate adaptation strategies, by focusing both on the potential of more integrated approaches and knowledge bases and on the synergies and obstacles to the development of integrated strategies and policies in these domains. Moreover, the need for innovating economical approaches and for better integrating experts and community knowledge to enhance urban resilience in the face of climate change will be discussed.

The last section will, on the one hand, draw lessons from current strategies and practices in the face of climate change and, on the other hand, provide hints for improving them. In detail, the numerous and heterogeneous case studies will be compared and discussed based on theoretical principles arising from the three considered urban metaphors (e.g., adaptive or transformational approach, role of innovation and creativity, relevance attributed to learning capacity). Furthermore, mobility of climate knowledge and policies among different urban contexts within Europe and between European and extra-European contexts will be deepened.

Finally, also based on the outcomes of the fifth section, current approaches will be reframed to outline an integrated approach to climate issues. In detail, based on mutual links and/or conflicting issues identified in current large-scale and local policies and practices, an overarching framework capable of guiding planners and decision-makers in building up climate-sensitive urban development processes will be outlined. The framework will include strategic and operative guidelines to overcome barriers and critical issues previously highlighted, favoring the identification of cross-sectoral strategies and measures; the capacity to take into account synergies and tradeoffs between mitigation and adaptation strategies and measures in climate policies at an urban scale; and the mutual capacitation and contamination among institutional and bottom-up climate strategies/initiatives.

Adriana Galderisi,     University of Campania Luigi, Vanvitelli Aversa, Italy

Angela Colucci,     Co.O.Pe.Ra.Te. ldt, Pavia, Italy

References

Brenner N, Schmid C. The ‘urban age’ in question. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research. 2014;38(3):731–755. doi: 10.1111/1468-2427.12115.

Beck U. The Risk Society. Towards a New Modernity. Sage Publications; 1992.

Beck U. The Metamorphosis of the World. UK, USA: Polity Press; 2017.

Secchi B. A new urban question: when, why and how some fundamental metaphors were used. In: Gerber A, Patterson B, eds. Metaphors in Architecture and Urbanism. An Introduction. Transcript Verlag; 2014: 978-3-8376-2372-7.

Section I

Metaphors to Enhance Cities' Capacity to Cope With Climate Change

Outline

Chapter 1. The Smart City Metaphor to Foster Collaborative and Adaptive Decision-Making Processes in the Face of Climate Issues

Chapter 2. The Resilient City Metaphor to Enhance Cities' Capabilities to Tackle Complexities and Uncertainties Arising From Current and Future Climate Scenarios

Chapter 3. The Transition Approach in Urban Innovations: Local Responses to Climate Change

Chapter 4. Smart, Resilient, and Transition Cities: Commonalities, Peculiarities and Hints for Future Approaches

Chapter 1

The Smart City Metaphor to Foster Collaborative and Adaptive Decision-Making Processes in the Face of Climate Issues

Adriana Galderisi     University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Aversa, Italy

Abstract

The chapter deals with the smart city metaphor, outlining its potential for empowering a climate-sensitive urban development. Starting from a brief introduction of the smart city metaphor, the contribution focuses on the persisting dichotomy between a techno-centered and a human-centered perspective, which shape the different goals and objectives of the smart city initiatives. In detail, the former perspective, and the most widespread one so far, has led mainly to a focus on mitigation issues, contributing to the achievement of the limited (although desirable) goal to optimize existing infrastructures and services to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and increase energy efficiency. Nevertheless, based on the human-centered perspective, the smart city concept could encompass more than merely mitigation, allowing the establishment of collaborative and continuously learning decision-making processes, crucial to enhance the transition toward climate-sensitive urban development.

Keywords

Adaptive capacity; Collaborative decision-making; Continuous learning; ICTs; Smart City

1.1. Introducing the Smart City Metaphor

The concept of a smart city was first introduced in the early 1990s, according to an economic perspective and pointing out a urban development more and more dependent on technology, innovation, and globalization phenomena (Gibson et al., 1992). However, using heterogeneous terms (wired, intelligent, digital, etc.) and referring to technologies that largely differ from those currently available, the smart city concept has actually been discussed since the late 1970s (Batty et al., 2012). Nowadays, more and more sophisticated hardware and software technologies (sensors' networks, smart devices, etc.) allow for the collection, systematization, analysis, and integration of large amounts of structured and unstructured information, creating opportunities for more informed decision-making processes in different thematic and geographical areas.

Despite that in the last decade the term smart city has gained prominent attention from scholars, practitioners, and decision makers, definitions and approaches are still very heterogeneous, and a common definition is still lacking. The term has been used so far with so many different meanings that it is in danger of becoming another vague urban label (Holland, 2008), a fuzzy concept often improperly used (Nam and Pardo, 2011).

Referring to the rich literature on smart cities published since the year 2000, it is possible to find more than 50 definitions, mostly from 2010 to 2012, from both scholars and representatives of the leading technology companies (e.g., Siemens, Cisco, IBM, etc.).

Although a shared definition is still lacking, starting from the middle of the 2000s, the operational domains of smart cities have been clearly defined. According to Giffinger et al. (2007), a Smart City is a city well performing in a forward-looking way in six characteristics, built on the ‘smart’ combination of endowments and activities of self-decisive, independent and aware citizens. These characteristics refer to smart economy, smart people, smart governance, smart mobility, smart environment, and smart living. For each characteristic specific factors and indicators have been provided. Giffinger's model represents a reference point for the following research studies and initiatives in the field of smart cities, although it paved the way for numerous criticisms too. The representation of the six characteristics as separate from each other, for example, leads to promoting a sectoral approach to urban development; moreover, some characteristics, such as quality of life or governance, should not be intended as separate dimensions, since all the actions undertaken in the different operational domains (mobility, environment, etc.) should have the final goal of raising the quality of life and require effective governance mechanisms for their implementation.

Nevertheless, an in-depth comparative analysis of the numerous available definitions of smart city as well as a detailed analysis of its main characteristics are beyond the scope of this chapter. Numerous literature reviews on smart cities, aimed at comparing and discussing existing definitions of the concept, based on different perspectives and addressing heterogeneous goals, have been carried out in recent years (Mosannenzadeh and Vettorato, 2014; Albino et al., 2015; Anthopoulos, 2015); moreover, the Giffinger model has been largely used both for ranking medium-sized European cities and for analyzing successful initiatives (Manville et al., 2014).

Thus, referring to the available literature for a detailed knowledge of definitions and characteristics of a smart city, we will focus on some key points, allowing a better understanding of how such a widespread concept may contribute to achieve a climate-sensitive urban development.

1.2. The Smart City Between Conflicting Approaches and Goals: Looking for New Directions

One of the most controversial issues in current literature on the smart city is the role of Information and Communication Technologies (ICT) in urban development; it can be synthesized into the well-known and largely debated dichotomy between a techno-centered approach, focused on the potentialities of hardware infrastructure (Cairney and Speak, 2000; Washburn and Sindhu, 2010), and a human/social centered approach, which emphasizes the importance of human and social capital (Partridge, 2004; Glaeser and Berry, 2006) to the smart city.

The first approach, so far largely prevailing, has been largely nurtured by multinational companies, leaders in the sector of ICT manufacturing. Nevertheless, in recent years many criticisms of the technological determinism that underlies this approach have been raised, so that the vice president of CISCO pointed out that, despite that we are crossing the threshold to put internet-based tools to work in cities .... technological devices are merely tools that can make our life better only if they are put in the hands of users who understand and can make the most of them (Elfkrink, 2012).

The second approach does not ignore the role of technology as a crucial enabling tool, but points out human and social capital as the main levers for smart development. In this sense, some scholars have emphasized the importance of smart inhabitants, in terms of educational level (Lombardi et al., 2012; Shapiro, 2006); others have emphasized the importance of a highly skilled labor force, and namely a creative class (Florida, 2003; Caragliu and Nijkamp, 2008), in terms of employees in creative sectors (science, engineering, design, multimedia industry, etc.). Following this line of thought, the label smart city has been recently converted into human smart city (Concilio et al., 2015). The new label clearly emphasizes the supporting role of technology to achieve a more effective and, above all, a more equitable urban system, also through participatory planning and design processes (Schuler, 2016). The proponents of the human smart city approach stress not only the potential of ICTs in strengthening the human dimension of urban smartness but clearly note the key role of ICTs in reshaping current cities, by underlining that new technologies cannot be merely fit into the existing spaces, but actually modify the physical substrate and remodel the city by changing the ways in which people produce it (Concilio and Rizzo, 2016). Thus, it is possible to argue that the human smart city perspective envisages a radical change of current urban development patterns that, starting from human and social capital, also affects physical, functional, and organizational aspects of cities' development.

Another key issue in current debate on smart cities concerns the main goals to which the increasing use of ICTs has to be addressed. Numerous scholars have focused, indeed, on ICTs as key tools for making cities more and more instrumented and interconnected, for better linking cities' infrastructures and services and, in so doing, for ensuring higher quality services to citizens and improving overall cities' efficiency (Marsa-Maestre et al., 2008; Naphade et al., 2011). In contrast, other scholars outline that a smart city has to be based on something more than the use of information and communication technologies (Holland, 2008), since technology is not an end in itself but a means to reinventing cities for a new economy and society with clear and compelling community benefit (Eger, 2009).

It is evident that the debate among the supporters of an efficiency perspective and those, more radical, envisioning a substantial change in paradigms on which current urban development patterns are based, is closely linked to, and for some aspects reflects, the previously discussed dichotomy between techno-centered and human-centered approaches.

In light of the famous quote from the Roman philosopher Seneca, if a man does not know to what port he is steering, no wind is favorable to him (Epistolae LXXI, 3), it is possible to argue that ICTs represent a favorable wind as long as their use will be explicitly addressed to change or innovate current urban development patterns (in physical, functional, economic, and social terms), given the unsustainable conditions they have led to. The relevance of direction was also emphasized some years ago by Meadows (1994) in her seminal presentation to the International Society for Ecological Economics. She argued, in fact, that even if information, models, and implementation could be perfect in every way, how far can they guide us, if we know what direction we want to move away from, but not what direction we want to go toward?

Hence, based on the above, the idea of using ICTs for optimizing existing services and infrastructures, by improving cities' efficiency, seems to drive toward a limited (albeit desirable) goal, without envisioning new urban development patterns. In contrast, the smart city concept might present significant opportunities to reshape the way in which cities grow, the relationships between citizens and institutions as well between city and nature, leading to modify current sociotechnical and socioeconomic aspects of growth (Zygiaris, 2013).

1.3. Smart City Initiatives: From Sectoral Toward Integrated Perspectives

The smart city model developed by Giffinger et al. (2007), as introduced above, represented a reference point not only for scholars but also for the numerous initiatives and projects addressed to improve urban smartness. Thus, smart city initiatives and projects have been initially marked by a sectoral perspective, addressing one or more of the smart cities' operational domains (energy, mobility, etc.), without a comprehensive vision of urban development.

The prevailing sectoral approach also characterized the Smart Cities and Communities Initiative, launched in 2011 by the European Union (EU) and addressed to support European cities in achieving the targets established by the EU Strategy 2020: 20% reduction of the greenhouse gas emissions (compared to the 1990 levels); 20% of energy from renewable sources; and 20% increase in energy efficiency. The Initiative aimed at funding projects focused on two areas of interest, energy and transport, although the projects could also focus on only one of the two areas.

A severe criticism of the sectoral approach to the smart city has been provided by the Manifesto for Smarter Cities (Kanter and Litow, 2009). The authors noted that in complex urban systems no subsystem can be effective when operating in isolation, and that making each subsystem smarter—by enhancing the performance of individual sectors (from transport to energy, from constructions to urban safety, etc.)—might be insufficient for building up a smart city.

In July 2012, the European Commission launched The Smart Cities and Communities European Innovation Partnership, aimed at supporting integrated projects in the sectors of energy, transport, and ICTs in urban areas. It is worth noting that only projects capable of integrating the three areas of concern, by creating synergies among them, were considered for funding. One year later, in 2013, the EU adopted the Strategic Implementation Plan of the European Innovation Partnership for Smart Cities and Communities (EU, 2013). The background document to the Strategic Implementation Plan clearly emphasized the need for holistic approaches, overcoming the ‘silo’ mentality and integrating solutions across different sectors (ICTs, energy production, distribution and use, transport and mobility). Moreover, besides promoting cross-sectoral actions, they also emphasized the need for integrating different actors across the innovation chain and engaging citizens in planning decisions at an early stage.

This approach seems better suited to the idea of smart city as an organic whole (Kanter and Litow, 2009) and to the emerging and widely agreed upon idea that while the siloed city model can be considered as one of the main barriers to the building up of smart city, the latter requires a system-wide view as well as integrated and cross-sectoral approaches (DeKeles, 2015).

The need for embedding smart city initiatives into a comprehensive city vision was also stressed by a 2014 study titled Mapping Smart City in EU. This study was commissioned by the European Parliament's Industry, Research and Energy Committee in order to provide a picture of the main factors contributing to the success of smart city initiatives and to formulate recommendations for future initiatives. Two main success factors for smart initiatives were identified: (1) with reference to the Giffinger's model, successful initiatives are those capable of covering all of the six characteristics, providing a holistic and integrated approach to the building up of a smart city, and (2) to promote a wide stakeholders' engagement. The study also highlighted pros and cons of top-down and bottom-up approaches, remarking that, whereas a top-down approach promotes a high degree of coordination, a bottom-up approach provides more opportunities for direct people engagement (Manville et al., 2014).

1.4. The Governance of the Smart City: From Top-Down Initiatives Toward Collaborative Decision-Making Processes

Even before the study of Manville et al. (2014), people involvement has been considered as a critical factor for successful smart city initiatives, and numerous scholars have stressed that building up a smart city requires the strengthening of the cities' capacity not only to reduce energy consumption or to provide more effective services but, above all, to empower human capital and ensure wide and effective participation of a wide range of stakeholders in urban development processes.

Nam and Pardo (2011), for example, clearly presented the key role of stakeholders' engagement: successful smart city can be built from top down or bottom up approaches, but active involvement from every sector of the community is essential. Also Batty et al. (2012) emphasized that although public participation has represented a long-standing tradition in institutionalized planning …, the emergence of the digital world has turned the activity on its head.

Hence, due to the growing awareness that a smart city cannot be achieved solely through physical hard planning (Albrechts, 2016), governance issues have gained increased attention in the debate on smart cities both in academic and in political arenas (Meijer and Bolivar, 2016).

According to Birkmann et al. (2010) it is possible to distinguish between the concept of governance, which describes all ways in which individuals and institutions exercise authority and manage common affairs at the interface of the public, civil society and private sector, and that one of good governance introduced by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) in 1997 and related to participatory, consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive processes.

The Discussion Paper on Governance for Sustainable Development issued in 2014 has clearly stated that, although the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) did not include a goal or targets on governance, this concept is crucial to sustainable and equitable development. Governance … provides, indeed, the mechanisms through which collaboration can be generated across sectors. It also addresses some of the fundamental obstacles to sustainable development, including exclusion and inequality (UNDP, 2014).

Due to the key role played by ICTs in enhancing connectivity across different sectors as well as among different urban stakeholders, smart governance has been identified as one of the six characteristics or dimensions of a smart city—although more and more widely recognized as a cross-cutting issue in the building up of a smart city—comprising different aspects as public participation in decision making, services for citizens, as well as the transparent functioning of public administration (Giffinger et al., 2007).

Nevertheless, two different schools of thought appear in the debate on smart governance. The first one emphasizes the idea of smart governance as a more effective techno-practice supported by ICTs; the second one stresses the idea that ICTs should be addressed to transform and reshape current decision-making processes.

In detail, the supporters of the idea of smart governance as a techno-practice emphasize that the availability of a large number of innovative tools (sensors for collecting real-time data and information; technical platforms as devices for better linking different domains, etc.) may guarantee informed and real-time updated decision-making processes and, in doing so, might increase their effectiveness. Based on this, numerous top-down initiatives have been developed in order to optimize urban functions and services through ICTs in existing cities and, to a very extreme, this line of thought has resulted into newly planned and designed from-scratch cities (Masdar, Songdo, etc.), although widely criticized and largely unsuccessful.

In contrast, some scholars refer to smart governance as innovative ways of decision-making, innovative administration or even innovative forms of collaboration (Meijer and Bolivar, 2016). In this way, ICTs are mostly interpreted as facilitating tools for creating new collaborative environments (Komninos, 2011). These environments could be very relevant both for ensuring a better linkage among multiple levels, bodies, and operational tools currently in charge of different aspects of urban and territorial development and for guaranteeing more effective citizen engagement in decision-making processes, although they require, above all, innovation-oriented institutions and virtual collaborative spaces.

Batty et al. (2012) recognized also the significant potential of ICTs in strengthening bottom-up participatory approaches, allowing informed citizens to engage with experts from many domains in generating scenarios for improving the quality of urban life and urban performance.

In this way, recent experiences in the field of smart city in Europe are exploring bottom-up participatory approaches, paving the way to pro-active and open-minded governance structures, with all actors involved (Kourtit et al., 2012) and, in doing so, they are driving toward community-based models of governance (Meijer and Bolivar, 2016). The new governance structures are mainly addressed to create collaborative environments, often based on open platforms that facilitate collaborative interactions and processes, in which different stakeholders, comprising citizens, may interact and work together for codeveloping innovative solutions to specific challenges. In these contexts, the innovation potential is mostly related to the possibility to integrate different sources and types of knowledge—scientific/expert knowledge, developed by different actors, on different geographical scales and in different domains (Galderisi, 2016), and experiential/local knowledge (Albrechts, 2016), which is considered one of the key challenges for adaptive urban governance (Birkmann et al., 2010).

1.5. Information, Knowledge, and Learning for Adaptive Cities

In the collaborative environments briefly depicted herein, knowledge and learning arise as key issues for increasing urban smartness. According to Komninos (2011), two relevant features of a smart city can include, on the one hand, the application of a wide range of electronic and digital technologies to create a cyber, digital, wired, informational, or knowledge-based city, and on the other hand, bringing ICT and people together to enhance innovation and learning.

The debate on smart cities has long been focused on the role of information flows. IBM (2010) defined cities as complex networks of interconnected systems, constantly creating new data to be used for monitoring, measuring, and managing urban life. Networks of sensors, wireless devices, and data centers have long been considered as the backbone of smart cities, allowing local authorities to provide urban services in a faster and more efficient manner. Moreover, the potential of ICTs to collect (in real time and from a variety of different sources), store, and manage larger and larger amounts of information and data, as a mean to rationalize planning and management of cities, has been largely emphasized (Townsend, 2013).

Thus, the availability of a large amount and real-time updated data and information related to different aspects of city functioning represents a key feature of a smart city. Nevertheless, the question is if the large amount of available information is capable of guaranteeing better knowledge of urban phenomena and, even more, improving interactions among different stakeholders by engaging them in decision-making processes or supporting innovative solutions to existing problems? As argued by Murgante and Borruso (2015), the larger and larger amount of available data often provides structured and unmanageable information, which does not allow either to integrate different data and information or to effectively engage citizens and other stakeholders in decision-making processes. The recent debate on big data has